By refusing to hear case against Assam CM, SC made “Himalayan blunder ……. let down India”

By refusing to hear hate speech case against Assam CM, SC made "Himalayan blunder ..... and let down 1.4 billion Indians": Dushyant Dave, to Karan Thapar for The Wire. ......................................... In strong and stinging criticism of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the hate speech against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Dushyant Dave, a former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has said the top Court has made “a Himalayan blunder” and “let down 1.4 billion Indians”. Mr. Dave said the Supreme Court “insulted each one of us” by refusing to take up the matter and, additionally, it’s done a disservice to the institution and to the judges themselves. Mr. Dave responded to each of the reasons given by the Supreme Court for refusing to hear the case against Himanta Biswa Sarma. First, he said with reference to the claim that the Supreme Court was not “a playground for political litigations for the purpose of publicity” that this is a “really unwarranted and uncalled for” observation. Second, he said with reference to the claim that if the Court takes up every matter across the country “it will be unmanageable for us”, Mr. Dave said it’s “the bounden duty of the Supreme Court to intervene”. Third, with reference to the claim that by going to the Supreme Court before the Guwahati High Court this was “undermining the authority of the High Court”, Mr. Dave said this was a “completely farcical” argument. He said “the right to go to the Supreme Court is a guarantee” given by the constitution and if you use it it doesn’t mean you are undermining high courts. Speaking about the quality of chief justices since 2014, Mr. Dave said: “Over the last few years chief justice after chief justice have failed us”. The two chief justices he excluded from this verdict are Justice U. U. Lalit and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Mr. Dave has delivered an exceptionally strong critique of the functioning of the Supreme Court in this case as well as a cogent and clear rebuttal of the Supreme Court’s reasons for not taking up the hate speech case against the Assam Chief Minister. In the process he’s provided a framework for judging the performance of the Supreme Court as well as the behaviour and speeches of the Assam Chief Minister. I strongly recommend you see this interview. To help you, I give below the principal questions put to Mr. Dave. Here they are:- 1) I want to focus this interview on the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear allegations of hate speech against the Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and instead tell the petitioners to go to the Guwahati High Court. Was this the right step for the Supreme Court to take or has it made a terrible mistake? 2) Let’s come to the reasons the Supreme Court has given for refusing to hear the case. First, it says it can’t become a political battleground whenever elections are on the radar. Chief Justice Surya Kant said: “Why should the Supreme Court become a playground for political litigations for the purpose of publicity?” Is this a fair comment? Were the petitioners seeking to use the Supreme Court as a battleground where they can get publicity? 3) The second reason the Supreme Court gave for not entertaining the case against the Assam Chief Minister is that if every matter across the country were to come to the Supreme Court “it will be unmanageable for us with 33 judges.” Is the Supreme Court overburdened and, therefore, can’t take on more cases? 4) The third reason is the Supreme Court’s belief that the petitioners are undermining High Courts by not going to the Guwahati High Court first. Chief Justice Surya Kant said: “The entire effort is to undermine, demoralize the High Courts which is not acceptable to us. There is a very calculated move to undermine the authority of the High Courts.” What do you make of this reason? 5) Let’s now come to Abhishek Singhvi’s reasons why the Supreme Court should hear this matter under Article 32. He first said this is “(a) pan-India (matter)” and it affects “an entire religion and … the constitutional fabric and ethos of the country is threatened”. He argued that Article 32 was created specifically for what he called such “mega cases”. How do you respond to that argument? 6) Abhishek Singhvi also argued that the Guwahati High Court may not be the right forum to seek redressal of constitutional grievances against the state Chief Minister. He even suggested that if the matter has to be sent to a High Court it should he a High Court other than the Guwahati High Court. How do you respond to this argument? Join The Wire's Youtube Membership and get exclusive content, member-only emojis, live interaction with The Wire's founders, editors and reporters and much more. Memberships to The Wire Crew start at Rs 89/month. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChWtJey46brNr7qHQpN6KLQ/join